About 6000-7000 (@1024x768, high graphics).

Someone may have direct experience with that & can say their experience. I have not used it, as I don't use Intel very much. But my estimation is about 70% of the number that an AMD 4000+ (single core) could.

RTW does not benefit from dual core, itself. But drivers (like the new ATI 5.12) can benefit slightly due to offloading a little bloat code. And background processes can be run in the 2nd core. In the Index are several links of recent forumer discussions about some of that. If you have lots of CPU-consuming background processes and a system not optimized for gaming, then dual-core will benefit more.

yeah, but I cant afford a duelcore, lol
and there is none in this lousy socket type eather.

So I will just have to stick with this.

PS. does Rome Total War benifit from HyperThreading??

RTW does not directly benefit from HT.

Intel implemented HyperThreading as a variation of Simultaneous Multi-Threading (SMT). Some applications can run more efficiently if they're coded into a series parallel tasks called threads. XP and Linux, e.g., can then schedule those threads to operate on each of a system's two or more CPUs (or cores). HyperThreading basically fools the OS into thinking it's hooked up to two processors, when in fact there is only one. This allows two threads to be run in parallel, both on separate 'logical' processors within the same physical processor. The OS sees double through a mix of shared, replicated and partitioned chip resources (e.g., registers, FPUs, and cache memory).

But... a single instruction thread only uses about 35 to 50% of a processor's available resources, and running a second 'virtual' thread (HyperThread) allows those otherwise idle circuits to be do some work. That means, for example, if one thread is busily computing a list of integer values, the floating-point unit (FPU) is free work on a second thread. The catch is that in reality, the CPU labor cannot be smoothly and efficiently divided, and sadly the best HyperThreading can do is increase certain (very limited) application performance by about 2% to 25%.

HyperThreading allows some applications are already multi-threaded to benefit, particularly business users can run the most demanding desktop applications simultaneously, and keep a semblence of system responsiveness. In gaming, intel sometimes combines HyperThreading with Dual core, which in theory allows PCs to handle 4 threads at once. But in reality, at this time, you can basically run different apps, like making an MP3 and playing a game and scanning for viruses, and more of the CPU capability is used. But the game itself does not take advantage of this division of labor, and in fact, certain glitches can occur (a reality streneously denied by some people). But the glitches are results of the software and the overhead processes, not of a faulty CPU.

So the bottom line is that HyperThreading is not much benefit in a practical sense for gamers today, including Rome - Total War. The AMD 64 line of processors are far far more efficient than the current crop of Intel processors, particularly for gaming. HyperThreading is basically more hype than help. Dual-core has real promise, but developers are not yet caught up, particularly in gaming. ATI just released a driver (5.12) that evidently splits the bloated fluff code (stuff that does not do video driving) to a 2nd thread, which results in improvements of 5 to 20%. However, I'll say that the fluff code should be minimized for gaming in the first place, and the game itself should use core#2 (or CPU# 2 for dual-CPU machines). The HyperThreading 'virtual cores' are not at all worth it for most people, including gamers (IMHO).

Last summer, Tom's Hardware Guide (THG) said,

Quoted from Tom's Hardware Guide comparing dual-core AMD to Intel dual-core, hyperthreading:

However, if you are running multiple apps, on an Intel dual-core, hyperthreading CPU (in effect, 4 cores), and run software like buisines and engineering and video editing, etc., then the 840EE dual-core, hyperthreaded Intel CPU outperforms the Athlon 64 X2 4800. For games, it is inferior, by a huge margin. The intel, at full gaming load, also consumes 342 watts, vs AMDs far less 269 watts.

Dual-CPU: Very good. Worth it for anyone who can afford it. Cheaper than Dual-core.
Dual-Core: Very expensive, will drop in price radically during next year, developers will not catch up until 12 to 18 months from now, according to MS.
HyperThreading: Not worth it (my opinion) for average users and gamers, mainly because the Intel CPU is itself inferior to the mighty Athlon64s. It can be worth it in the right environment, however... but not for RTW.

My recommendation: The AMD runs games about 15 to 30% better (Athlon 64 X2 4800 vs Intel 840EE, on identical systems). If you have a choice, definitely get the AMD Athlon 64, not an Intel, for gaming (at this time and in the forseeable future).

Note: HyperThreading is NOT the same thing as HyperTransport!! The latter is a manufacturer-neutral specification of high-speed chip communication protocols and methods: HyperTransport is worth it and you should make sure your chip has it.

EDIT: added THG info.

[This message has been edited by Wartrain (edited 12-18-2005 @ 05:37 PM).]

Ok thanks wartrain for all the info, like I said I wish i could get a athlon but I cant until the near future.

I do lots of video editing and multi tasking so that is good for me I guess.

If you do lots of multitasking, then the Intel 840EE performs better than the Athlon 4800+ while under load from multiple threads. Hyperthreading does work, its just that the real-world benefits come under certain circumstances, and then the benefits are not as much as advertising might suggest.

Keep in mind that the THG review for the 840EE vs Athlon64 X2 4800+ were high-end (expensive) chips, on a top system. Hyperthreading in the low-end Intel chips gives even less gain than the 840EE.

Okay, that's good I wasn't expecting a performance gain in games anyway. I only expected a gain in video editing and listening to music.

Thanks wartrain your the BEST!!

You'd get a performance gain in video editing and encoding, but I seriously doubt you'd experience any improvement when listening to music...

I ment all at once

Wartrian If you Read this again can you look at by Blog and tell me if I am missing somthing

my blog is here http://rometwhelp.blogspot.com/

Oh yeah I wanted to ask permission to use your INDEX of Technical Issues & Help on my blog please email me at themodman101@gmail.com

Thanks!

PS. Anyone can visit it it's just not quite finished yet, please post comments so I can see what I have wrong & right.

Normally, I prefer to answer questions publicly, since others might have the same question, now or in the future.

About linking the Index pages, its OK with me, though basically, I'm not the one to approve or disapprove. Really the content that forumers post at RTWH is what's in the Index, so it is probably best to ask the HG admins (like sallred@heavengames.com ) or Adder about it. In the CoC, I did not see a part that directly addressed your question, but I assume the answer would be that you can use a link to the site based on re-reading the [url=http://forums.heavengames.com/support/tos.shtml]CoC[/u]. The closest I saw was the part about "So please note that our forums aren’t the place to advertise your own site or forums or sites with similar content to ours. ... You are welcome to link your site in your signature without a slogan."

A very minor thing in general about post links (here or from off-site), I personally prefer to use the first post link (or actual post link, if post is buried in a thread), like:

http://rtw.heavengames.com/cgi-bin/forums/display.cgi?action=st&fn=3&tn=3524&st=0#post0

That link is found just the the right of the poster's name, under the little sheet of white paper icon.

Ok, I will do that.

As a general visual update to the Intel Hyperthreading issue by Tom's Hardware Guide (THG), it seems I gave the Intel chips and drivers a bit too much credit... Using the Geforce 6800 GT video card, AMD pretty much slams the intel product line. So here are some performance specifics...

Note how the Intel "D" offerings are spanked and sent home crying for mama in a 3D game test (using a 6800GT video card for this test):

When RARing, note how the FX-57 and even AMD 64 4000+ (single core) beat both the X2 4800+ and the Intel 840EE (and remember, the 4000+ costs about 1/3 of the others!):
[PNG, (81.17 KB)]

Again in XVid, the Intel HyperThreading 840EE lags... the X2 cores evidently are used much better by the XVid developers:
[PNG, (80.62 KB)]

Memory:
Intel: DDR2-667 2x512MB - DDR2-533 (400 MHz) Infineon HYS64T64000GU-3.7-A (CL 4.0-4-4-8)
AMD:  DDR400 2x512MB - DDR400 - (200 MHz) GEIL GLX1GB3200DC (CL 2.0-2-2-5)
AGP Card: Gigabyte Geforce 6800GT (GVN68T256DH), nVidia Geforce 6800 GT (350 MHz), 256 MB DDR-SDRAM (500 MHz)
PCIe Card: nVidia Geforce 6800 GT (Reference board), nVidia Geforce 6800 GT (350 MHz), 256 MB DDR-SDRAM (500 MHz)
Drivers:
Intel ChipsetIntel 7.2.1.1003 (07/11/2005)
Nvidia nForce 4Forceware 6.66 (07/15/2005)
Nvidia nForce 2Forceware 5.10 (09/17/2004)
Nvidia Graphic AGP and PCIEDetonator 78.01 (09/02/2005)

I have been loking for a chart like that FOREVER!!
Thanks Wartrain!!

Your making me wish I had a athlon system. grumble!

To be fair to Intel, their chips will still work, but more important than performance is actually price. A cheap or free Intel is better than a full price (~$1020USD) FX57. So the real choice for most people is not what is at the top of the chart, but actually P/P (Price/Performance), since most people combine at least a few older parts to make a new system. But for a new MB+CPU+RAM, the only way I'd do it (actually, am doing it right now, building PCs fro friends and local kids), is to do the AMD Athlon 64 route, even if it is 'only' a 3200+.

Does anyone know what the activisions test computer specs were?
Is there anyway I can find out?

Thanks.